Thursday, May 15, 2008

California Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Ban, But No Impact On Religious Doctrines

The California Supreme court today in a 4-3 decision ruled that under the California Constitution, same-sex couples have the same right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. In In re Marriage Cases, (CA Sup. Ct., May 15, 2008), the majority emphasized, however that "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)"

In reaching its decision on gay marriage, the court held that "sexual orientation [is] a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment...." In response to the argument that sexual orientation should not trigger strict scrutiny because it is not an "immutable" characteristic, the majority said that: "California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes ... and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control." Today's Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Here are links to the briefs and recordings of the oral arguments in the case.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good to see that the court addressed immutability in no uncertain terms.
Maybe this decision will quiet some of the pious nitwits who whine and whine about 'chosen lifestyles' as if that had some bearing on whose civil rights bear protection. Religion is also chosen.
Biological vs. environmental causes might be a worthwhile scientific question, but it doesn't mean spit here.

Tim

Barb said...

Not at all --no quieting of this "nitwit whiner." I know it is NOT immutable or genetic --I can read, afterall.

I just talked with a person who ran a group home for adolescents for a number of years with his wife. He said the young residents of the home had started to have homosexual activities in childhood and were habituated/addicted to the activities when they were assigned to his home. He saw no reason to conclude this was evidence of being "born that way." Twins: one can be gay and one straight --yet they have the same genes. So it's not genetic.

And there are men who left the gay life to be straight and tell the story. The Bible speaks of those who were converted away from sinful pasts --including homosexuality.

It's not immutable. Why do the gays insist that it is immutable when there are others who say they were able to leave that way of having sex? Ever see how the gays ridicule those who have re-entered hetero life? They know that temptation probably remains tempting. The fact that some are NOT tempted homosexually -as I am not--is beside the point. I understand the allure of sexual experience --and I know that once people cross barriers the first time, it is easier for them subsequently --and it will affect self-image -- and orientation. And many start during a time when it is EASIER to find, relate to and be with close friends of the same sex and when the natural desire is for a niche with the same sex and buddies of the same sex --"male bonding," e.g. Granted, the effeminate (usually father-neglected) males who relate more easily to women and are over-exposed to the bodies and the thought-patterns of women.

It's a public health hazard and just as tempting to some people as adultery, pedophilia and incest are to people who do those things. These are all temptations to sin which must be screened out of the brain at the doorway --just don't go there in the mind. The fact that some adolescents can feel turned on by their own sex means nothing --since they can be turned on at the drop of a hat over any kind of bodily contact or visual erotica.

Barb said...

MOREOVER --here we have an example of a one vote majority overruling the will of the people on the issue of same-sex marriage. FOUR activist judges overruled the people.

That's why NOTHING could make me vote for a Democrat. However, we may need a 3rd party if the REpublicans cave on the family values issues.

The gays already had the same rights as everyone else --to marry someone of the opposite sex and do healthy things that would never ever give each other an STD. As it is now, oral and anal sodomy are responsible for STD's --deadly ones that have crossed over into the promiscuous straight community --even affecting infants. And they give us no children for national defense or social security support or to preserve American ideals of liberty and equality by majority rule.

But again, what good is majority rule if the liberal courts are making the laws?

Barb said...

You know, this is why the Democrat party has super delegates --just in case the masses don't see things the way the elites do. They want the Harvards and Yalies to run the country, not the majority.

t.mouse said...

Of the California Supreme Court's seven justices, six were Republican appointees.

George H. W. Bush attended Yale. George W. Bush attended Harvard and Yale.

CrypticLife said...

Barb,

Given that the California congress twice tried to pass bills approving of gay marriage, you're straining a bit to say the court is overriding the will of the people.

The only reason they failed is because Schwarzenneger vetoed the bills. That would be a minority of. . . one.

And yes, gay marriages do not give children. However, there are lots of orphans and children given for adoption. Being married could make it easier for gay couples to adopt, which would be a good thing for society.

CrypticLife said...

Barb,

Given that the California congress twice tried to pass bills approving of gay marriage, you're straining a bit to say the court is overriding the will of the people.

The only reason they failed is because Schwarzenneger vetoed the bills. That would be a minority of. . . one.

And yes, gay marriages do not give children. However, there are lots of orphans and children given for adoption. Being married could make it easier for gay couples to adopt, which would be a good thing for society.

Chimera said...

W00t! 'Bout time!

Tim, the whiners will now ramp it up to shriek level, claiming that they are being forced to endure gay marriage.

I wait breathlessly for the first instance of anyone's being forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Lycian said...

This is an bigoted decision. I want to marry my cocker spaniel and nothing in this case decision allows me to. We were born with this desire, my dog and I. She's a beautiful blonde. Besides, even though we can't have kids, we can adopt.

It's just not fair. Someday I pray, you intellectual cave dwellers will progress beyond your intolerance and see that canine-human relations are completely natural. Stop forcing your lifestyle on others.

CrypticLife said...

lycian,

I think you should let the intelligent one in your relationship do the commenting.

Lycian said...

I can feel the hate clear over here.

Of course I am being facetious (big word alert for Chimera) but I do love my dog. However I am always amazed by people like Cryptic who are so intolerant of people with opinions like Barb's.

The "people" are the 60% of Californians who voted for the referendum to keep marriage marriage. The bills for hijacking marriage that Arnold saved us from were passed by the liberal extremist legislators. Elected yes, but so is Arnold, so what is your point?

You choose to hate, it is not immutable; please stop.

CrypticLife said...

Lycian,

Hate? To say her argument is strained, and pointing out aspects of the argument she may have overlooked, is "hate"? and "so intolerant"? She tells me I'm going to hell, I tell her she's wrong and I'm the one who's hating?
You might note also, that I haven't told Barb she should leave the country. I disagree with her; I debate her. That's not the same as being intolerant of a person. About the rudest thing I say is that she's wrong.

The referendum was nearly a decade ago. Lots of things have changed since then.

Most legislators make their position on gay-rights issues known prior to being elected. Schwarzenneger did not, preferring to run on a campaign of likability. It worked for him. But, the acts of Congress are far more indicative here than Schwarzenneger's actions of the will of the people.

Not to mention, of course, that minority rights are never about the will of the people. The majority will frequently oppose minority rights.

Chimera said...

CL, ain't it always the case that whenever the anti-choice proponents are thwarted in their efforts to impose undue restrictions on the lives of people with whom they have nothing in common, at least one of them always trots out the ubiquitous "hate" allegation?

I "hate" when it does that.

Lycian said...

So Chimera, you are anti-anti-choice? So it's OK with you if the NAMBLA (or whacko LDS sect)folks get married to consenting young boys or girls? It's OK with you if the airline pilot who functions just fine while stoned smokes pot while flying? Its OK with you if young girls are circumcised because its a cultural preference? It's OK with you to terminate any unborn child regardless of term and regardless of no health risk to the mom because having a baby would be inconvenient?

These are all choices. You aren't anti any of them? Are you anti anything? Is there nothing that is just wrong or is everything relative all the time? So for Barb and company to have a moral compass, that makes them anti-choice? Seems to me that it is you and the Cripster who are imposing on Barb, not the other way around.

Chimera said...

Two words for the fear-mongerer:

Consenting Adults.

Learn them.

Lycian said...

So, you have decreed that the culture which deems circumcision of girls appropriate is wrong? All of those people are wrong? Because you are against the choice they make? You? Who are you to be judge of the choices they make?

So you have no problem with the adult airline pilot sparking up while on the job? Consenting Adult, remember that.

How about if consenting adults want to bitterly cling to their faith and their guns? Is that OK, or are they simpletons who should be derided by the elitists?

How about if consenting adults decide to teach children that the optimal family unit for raising children and facilitating a continuing, moral society is a man and a woman as mother and father, husband and wife? You ok with that?

Nice philosophy you have - until you in all your smugness decide other people, consenting or not, are doing wrong.

Chimera said...

You have a problem with two consenting adults of the same sex living together in a marriage relationship? Who are they hurting (unlike the parents of the girls who are being mutilated)?

I have no problem with your keeping your faith. Or your guns. Just don't go waving either of them in the faces of other people who might not want anything to do with them, okay?

And airline pilots will run into company regulations against all kinds of behavior while they're at work. I don't care what they ingest in their off hours, so long as they're fit to do the job while they're doing the job that involves the safety of hundreds of other people at a time.

We are all judges. I judge it to be wrong for anyone to tell other people how to live their own lives when they are hurting nothing and nobody. I don't care what they eat or drink. I don't care who they love. I don't care if they have twenty children or none. I don't care if they're atheists, Catholics, Rastafarian, Santeros, Buddhists, or Scientologists. I don't care if they're vegan or carnivore. I don't care if they're black, white, red, or green. None of that hurts anyone else.

And what do you care if other people don't agree with your definition of "moral?" Why are you so afraid of same-sex marriages?

Lycian said...

I'm not afraid of same sex marriages. There is no such thing.

Why do you have such a problem with my definition of "moral"?

Barb said...

OOh! I love to be defended! It's so rare!

I was glad to see you admit to being a judge, Chimera!

THAT'S SO TRUE AND SUCH A GREAT REALIZATION FOR ALL!

We all make discernments or judgments about what is right or wrong --and even those who claim neutrality are not neutral. They have strong feelings against those who do NOT claim neutrality.

You think we who define marriage as legit only between a man and woman are intolerant, bigoted and not minding our own business. I've said elsewhere how it IS our business --to care about what kind of laws are made --and what kind of society we bequeath to the next generation. And that there are good reasons to define marriage as we have for centuries --one man with one woman. All the other arrangements have their down sides for kids --as does a dysfunctional hetero monogamous unit as well. But I think there are built-in problems with homosexual and polygamous situations that aren't in a functional hetero-marriage-founded home.

I also think God has established the Adam and Eve model as best and I highly recommend it.

Barb said...

Cryptic LIfe, did I tell you you were going to Hell? I don't know that about you. I doubt I said it. I may have said i believe Christ is the only way to Heaven --but I also have said that God can save anyone He wants to --whether or not a person has known about Christ enough to believe in Him -- I don't think you can outright reject Christ and go to Heaven --but it won't be my call. Jesus said He will be the one who separates the sheep from the goats.

Chimera said...

"I'm not afraid of same sex marriages. There is no such thing."

Of course there is. Look around you.

You are free to keep your narrower definition for yourself, but as with god, you only get to define that for yourself. You don't get to define it for anyone else.

And if you're not afraid, then why do you feel so threatened by someone else's marriage?

"Why do you have such a problem with my definition of "moral"?"

I have no problem with your definition, so long as you don't try to make it mine, too. I have a different definition.

"...even those who claim neutrality are not neutral."

Not necessarily true, Barb. There are people for whom this is a non-issue, and they are ambivalent to the point of somnolence on the subject. Anyone who does not care one way or another can be said to be neutral.

"I've said elsewhere how it IS our business..."

You have said it, but you have not yet been able to demonstrate why you think it should be that way. How does someone else's domestic arrangement have a negative affect on you?

Lycian said...

Thanks Chimera, you have made the case for Barb and I precisely.

Marriage has always been legally, in society and in every mainstream religious doctrine a union of a man and a woman. Man and woman defined physiologically, not just as perceived by an individual about himself.

A term with a history like that is an established morality that now you and yours want to force your way into because of the compelling need of "we want to." I think Barb and most Americans would submit the opinion that homosexuality is a choice, a sin, a perversion, or whatever, but they know decent people of that persuasion who aren't in anybody's face with their lifestyle and have no problem with the concept of a civil union giving a couple the legal rights of a traditional marriage.

But that is not what you want. You want the institution of marriage. Well, it's not your institution, it belongs to the history of civilized humanity and defines a man joined with a woman in the eyes of society, God, and the government. It defines the core of a family structure that is necessary for society.

Forcing your way into an etablished institution such as marriage when a non-discriminatory alternative such as civil unions exists is a glaring example of one group of people's intolerance of the preferences of another.

Barb has expressed valid reasons for maintaining the integrity of "marriage." You may not agree with her but I laugh at your chastisement of her for forcing a morality upon you while at the same time you are coming in the back door (no pun intended) to co-opt her morality with yours.

Chimera said...

"Marriage has always been legally, in society and in every mainstream religious doctrine a union of a man and a woman."

That's in the past. It has recently changed. Several countries and a few states have already made accomodations for the change.

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is biologically programmed into the sex drive, much like the preference for any other type (blonde/brunette, redhead, tall/short, slender/zaftig etc.).

"...a non-discriminatory alternative such as civil unions exists..."

Oh, of course (except where it doesn't). Equal but separate, eh? You wanna make sure the water fountains are clearly marked, now...and the seats on the bus -- you gonna take the front or the rear?

Barb has not given me any such reasons. "Because it's always been that way" is not a valid response.

What are you guys afraid of? What do you think you will lose if your neighbor across the street marries his boyfriend? And leave the religious factor out of it -- churches are not being forced to marry anyone, and for the most part, gay marriages are performed by civil ceremonies.

Barb said...

Here's what I fear:

God's wrath on the nation and the removal of His Hand of Protection and Blessing. He is the one who has ordained the male-female unit. The Genesis story says so and Jesus said so and St. Paul said so --and biology says so. there is nothing healthy and safe about any kind of sodomy, with or without latex barriers. Too much disease risk --too much instability and dysfunction are built in to gay relationships.

I fear A decline in birth rates as more and more self-focused people chase after childless orgasm-centered relationships instead of family-centered reltationships. (Yes, I know that some or many lesbians have maternal instincts.) That decline in birth rates will give us fewer people for the military and fewer for social security support and other essential career-persons for the future. We'll immigrate more and more people to do our work because we aren't making the kids to do it. And majority rule from outside may change America's best characteristics and we shall become like a 3rd world country overrun with people who don't share our respect for life, law, honesty,equality and other rights, etc.

I fear that homosexuality will be more common if children are raised by homosexuals. I believe that is already proving to be the case. Kids will love their best friends (normal) and think that might mean they are gay (abnormal.) and they'll sexually experiment (risking emotions and physical health) to figure out what they like --and they won't have good hetero experiences and relationships (as so many do not in their immaturity) and they may be inclined to conclude that gay is better --not that gays have good relationships either, but normal women get along well with girlfriends --and guys with guys. For normal people there is an adjustment to the male-female unit because they ARE opposites.

What the society condones and celebrates WILL become more prevalent, trendy --and that's not good in this case.

I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that much Homosexality is a result of some kind of damage or inappropriate early sexual exposure and experience --or parents contributing to gender identity disorder/confusion. I fear that high profile homosex will contribute to the GID of children.

I wouldn't want that confusion for MY kids or grandkids. I don't want them to believe the lie that they might be born gay --or to believe the lie that it's OK to be gay.

You who want to do that should stay in the closet so as to not affect other people's children. Because there is no more necessity to be gay than to be an adulterer or a pedophile or incestor, sex addict or prostitute. People are compelled to sexual immorality of all kinds --that doesn't make ANY of it RIGHT!!! the Bible is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only rightful setting for sexual union.

ONe good possibility --maybe the pro-family people and the GOP will ultimately outnumber the others for sure --if they have lots of babies --since the gays cannot create life with each other and if liberals choose to abort or have small families.

Seriously, I really don't think that low birth rate or abortion are positive even if these do result in a pro-family majority. I'd rather see the liberal side come to their senses --and find God's purpose for their lives --His purposes for their created sexuality.

CrypticLife said...

Barb, you've said my views will "cost me dearly" in the afterlife. Sounds a lot like an assertion that I'm going to hell to me, though of course there could be lots of versions of the afterlife you might subscribe to that would indicate otherwise.

For what it's worth, I don't consider your assertion all that terrible (partially probably because I also think it's fictional). My point was I haven't been hateful towards you.

Barb said...

No, CL, you --and even Chimera, do not really rise to the level of hateful.

I like this blog because people ARE interested in the topics and interested in arguing the points pro and con -- and don't do TOO much ad hominem attacking --jabs and jibes here and there --but not what I've encountered on some other blogs which get malicious, personal, threatening to an extreme degree.

One blogger in my city has posted my house photo (looked it up on auditor's real estate records because he had my full name since I have been published in the newspaper and I started to comment on his liberal blog when he wrote about me and my letter and my school board past from his biased opinion.) He has posted my name and address and a map to my house, a photo of my church and congregation from their website, and called me a racist, bigoted homophobe, deliberately misquoted me as saying things/thinking things I never said or thought to stir up public opinion against me (libel), he has blocked me from self-defense while he blasts me on his blog --

I do suspect he's mentally unbalanced and wonder if the police hadn't ought to find out who he is.

Then a French blog I participated in got so mad about my religious views that they started to post really insulting photo "art" demeaning me and got sacriligious to an extremely vile degree.

So I like this blog a lot!

I have always said I could meet liberal bloggers socially over brunch somewhere --as a fellowship of people who like to discuss issues and debate -- but I've never found any that broad-minded and tolerant!

I would say on the French blog that the example of real tolerance is sharing the living room with people whose ideas we don't like --and managing to like the people nevertheless. I think it may be a uniquely Christian thing --to be able to love the enemy, to be able to be kind and friendly to the ideological opponent--while still disagreeing over hot button topics.

Barb said...

I would not wish Hell upon anyone, CL --and I don't think it's fiction because i don't think Jesus, His miracles, His resurrection or HIs claims and prophecies are fiction.

He said there is a Hell to shun and a Heaven to gain --and I believe it.

If I'm right --and you do not ever come to faith, I believe you are in trouble.

I would not create a Hell or wish it on anyone --but I'm not God. He is sovereign. He has given us an easy out. Jesus is really not a "killjoy." but a source of joy.

I know it makes some people uneasy and angry to hear this belief --they don't want to be scared into faith. They don't want to be reminded of the possibility that there may be a Hell to shun for those who do not accept the Savior.

But on the other hand, the Bible says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." MAybe it is. Maybe resistance and unease are necessary to make one "seek and find."

Prophets are usually without honor --usually crucified. The natural reaction against them seems to be hostility --except with the charlatans who gain a huge following like Mohammad did.

CrypticLife said...

Okay, then with Lycian's accusation of "hate" out of the way. . . (by the way, Lycian, care to restate any of that more accurately?)

It seems some of the arguments on gay marriage are a bit schizophrenic. If one of your objections to homosexuality is that the relationships are unstable, allowing homosexual marriage will tend to alleviate that. After all, that's supposedly one reason the state supports marriage -- to favor stable relationships. If a couple is in a committed relationship, they're less likely to spread disease.

As far as the "ownership" of marriage, I don't know that the word is actually copyrighted. And if that's all it is -- the use of the word "marriage" over "civil union" -- the religious really don't have much moral standing in keeping them from using that word.

I do not know whether homosexuality is inborn or learned. I do not feel this is a particularly relevant point when discussing rights.

It does run into an interesting question, though. Say we assume, for sake of argument, that Barb is right and homosexuality is not actually desirable for the state (not "wrath of God", but due to birth rate issues, disease, etc.). And assume it's inborn, and we determine a way to actually prevent it, a vaccine perhaps. Should we?

Lycian said...

There you go CL; jumping off of the "holier than thou" train that Chimera is on (ironic description, eh?) and stating your last post in a thoughtful, open minded manner qualifies you for my "not a hater just a thinker" award.

Chimera, however, continues with his Borgish "resistance if futile - we have the activist court on our side and you will be assimilated" gloat that is clearly elitist and intolerant of the dissenting majority. Hate? Probably.

Great question at the end of your blog; should we vaccinate if we could? That's right up there with the deaf activists trying to ID gene patterns that will allow deaf parents to abort all but deaf babies so they can have deaf kids. Nice.

Of course we don't want Stepford babies, but where would you draw the line on this? Addictive behaviours? Homosexuality? Psychotic tendencies? Aggressive or passive tendencies? Blonde hair? Fair skin? Somebody would have to define good traits from bad. Barb would say if the baby has that nature in its genes, then God put it there for a purpose, so leave it be.

Chimera would say "lets vaccinate the human tendency to believe in a deity" (other than the government of course)because those bastards have a moral compass that actually defines right and wrong behavior. If the secularists could play god over God, they would in a heartbeat because standards against which people can be judged are just wrong. If it feels good do it baby!

tim said...

And Tim would say if IQs were prenatally tested, it's unlikely that Lycian would be here today to write these pedestrian posts.

A conspiracy of deaf folks to genetically engineer deaf children?

lycian said...

Timmy, turn off "The View" and read a newspaper. Fact baby.

I find it disconcerting that you appear to believe that deaf children are bad? They're just people with a different ability than others. Is it bad? Is it something we should strive to eliminate or since nature and/or God created them, should it be accepted? That is the discussion.

A little to deep for you? Go back to Obama speeches; right up your alley.

Barb said...

Actually, I certainly would favor genetic manipulation if it were proven to be safe and could eliminate birth defects without aborting. Abortion is wrong --curing conditions with medicine or with genetic fixing is OK with me. I believe God gives us our minds and lets us find solutions and relieve suffering in biology --but He has told us not to murder/abort.

Yes, homosexual orientation should be prevented if at all possible --but not with abortion. They have not proven any congenital or genetic cause yet that I've heard about.

I believe the cause is post-birth, however, for sexual orientation, and the prevention is in the upbringing. Not that parents are to blame. Sexual temptation is very strong --we need to teach children that they are male or female for God's purposes --to grow up and possibly marry the opposite sex and become parents --raising a family for the Lord. There is such blessing in such families.

We need to recognize diversity in personality and body type which makes some boys more macho and athletic, competetive --and others more gentle and scholarly, artistic, etc. And their fathers need to affirm them as masculine, as "one of the guys" even if they aren't stereotypical male neanderthal types. No one should treat kids as homosexual or put the idea into their heads that they aren't normal --just because they aren't stereotypical, loving beer and tv sports, belching and shunning the arts. And the same for girls who aren't all prissy and femmy.

Parents, however, should help kids be normal without giving them the idea that there is any cause for concern or any suggestion that they are NOT normal.

CrypticLife said...

Lycian,

I'm not in it for any "award" from you. I didn't jump off the "holier than thou" train, I was never on it. Kind of odd that you'd make that accusation, though, since that's quite literally what you and Barb are proposing: that you are "holier" than those of us who see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.

tim, I've heard of the deaf trying to ensure survival of their culture by rejecting cures as well. I don't know quite how widespread the phenomena is, though. I could certainly imagine, if there were some kind of way to reliably prevent homosexuality, it would meet with similar resistance. I believe not all homosexuals particularly care for the biological argument, because it does imply there's a physical component that could be "cured".

Barb, your opinions on whether homosexuality is inborn or learned are essentially worthless. You're entitled to have them, but they carry no weight. You have not done in-depth psychological studies of homosexuals, your apparent obsession with them notwithstanding. You probably don't even know very many homosexuals. Your knowledge of biology, despite your physician husband, is outdated and limited at best. Most of us, probably all of us, are in a similar position.

You mention that we "don't want Stepford babies", Lycian. Why don't we want them? If homosexuality is a birth defect, why not atheism? Why not big noses? Why does Barb think we need any artistic boys, when that role could just be filled by women?

Answer that question, and you'll know why even if we had a vaccine, we should not immunize against homosexuality.

tim said...

CL,

I have a cousin (hearing) who teaches at a deaf school, and also adopted a deaf baby. When the child was around 6, my cousin had a cochlear implant performed on him. I was really surprised to learn that a few of her deaf co-workers resented the fact that she had had that done.

But that is light years away from the conspiracy nonsense of supermarket tabloids - a cadre of fiendish scientists isolating the genetic code for deafness, in order that militant deaf women can abort their hearing babies.

Barb said...

Tim, women are already advised of their abortion option when defects are discovered in the womb. So handicapped people are already at risk from science and abortion. But I'm for any fixing of defects --including surgery on disfiguring noses that really keep a girl from looking conventionally "pretty." I knew a girl whose nose was like a parrot beak --and she got plastic surgery and it made a big difference in her appearance and thus her social comfort, acceptance, etc. Too bad we are so shallow.

CL --believe what you will about my ignorance; I am convinced that gays don't have to be gay and that we can prevent it.

There is nothing wrong with being artistic --and artistic need not and does not mean "gay." I'm saying that society and neanderthal fathers sometimes make gifted, non-macho boys feel abnormal --and such fathers fear that these sons are gay and treat them accordingly --distancing themselves. I wonder if any boys who are really close to hetero fathers turn out gay --assuming their fathers treat them like guys and not like babies or girls.

Christian Psych. Tim LaHaye did a study on 100 gays in Calif. and, if memory serves me, found that there was an early father-son rift in every case, fathers not present, or hostile and distant and cold and disapproving.

But today, culture is pushing the taboos through entertainment media and politics and it is almost "cool" to defy convention.

I think it's natural for people to really admire and desire acceptance by same sex friends --and some may crave this more than others and be vulnerable to same sex attraction/temptation. But I think it's just like pedophilia, adultery, incest --you don't have to go there when the first thought occurs. You can say no --and let your mind wander a bit more onto what it would feel like to be close to the opposite sex person. We have free will to exercise over our thought life.

CrypticLife said...

Christian Psych Tim LaHaye is:
1) not a psychologist, but is a Christian activist
2) believes the Illuminati is secretly controlling world events, and includes organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU in this conspiracy
3) had an obvious agenda in performing his research, and I'm sure used no rigorous controls


You missed my point on artistic males. I didn't say there's anything wrong with them. Nor did I say anything about them being gay. I said, "Why do we want them at all?"

As I said, you can be convinced. It doesn't mean anything that you're convinced. What matters is what you base that opinion on. If you're basing it on a dimly remembered study by a loony Christian activist engaging in junk "science", you're on very unstable ground for convincing anyone. It does, however, explain a bit about what you allow to pass as evidence.

I might remind us, incidentally, the thrust of the decision was that it does NOT *matter* whether homosexuality is an immutable trait. It's irrelevant for legal purposes.

CrypticLife said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

Whether or not homosexual orientation is an immutable trait matters to gays --because they have more public sympathy and support if they can prove that they can't help but be gay and can't change and wouldn't want to be gay if they could've prevented it. That's what the public needs to hear --that it's like being a race of people --inevitable.

I'm pretty sure LaHaye is a psych. He is also a minister whose wife started Concerned women for America, a more powerful organization in numbers than any feminist group.

You can't prove to the contrary that homosexuality is good, healthy, and that must homosexuals are happy people with functional family life. but we can point to many contrary examples. Granted,there is much dysfunction in hetero relationships, but keep in mind, no one is having pride parades for hetero dysfunction, promiscuity, STD's and divorce. The heteros make kids --that's why their marriages are legit and recognized.